Thinking of switching chest routines...Please critique!

[flyin j]

Normal chest routine:
Flat bench 10-8-6-6-10 (the first set is like a warmup but I still count it, 225-10)
incline dumbell 8-8-6-8 (dumbells only go to 125 which is too light)
weighted dips 3 sets to failure
1 set of flys

...and the routine I tried out this past week:
A low low incline, heres what I do I take a regular flat bench from the dumbell area over to one of the squat racks and prop it up 8 inches on a board, its very stable,and im not sure of the degree of incline. The reason I do that is ive read and heard that a lower incline is better than flat from a bodybuilding standpoint. My sets consist of 10-225 (kind of a warmup but I still count it) 275-8, 295-6, 325-6, 325 or more to failure (4-6), 295 to failure.
Weighted dips 4 sets to failure
Cable flys 4 sets 10-8-8-10

I did that this week and got a pretty good mid to upperchest pump out of it, which is what I desparatly need because im 6'3 and my mid to upperchest isnt as developed as my lower and outer chest is and I want to hopefully change that with this routine as I head into a 12 week cycle.

So my question is will that routine and especially the low incline help out any and if not can anyone suggest anything else to develop the mid to upperchest region??? Thanks for any input.



"Life is ours we live it our way"

METALLICA
'Nothing else matter'

 

[flyin j]

So theres no info on doing low incline rather than flat bench for better chest development??

 

[JohnRobHolmes]

IMO it would stimulate the upper chest a bit more without transferring the tension into the shoulders. i would lose the inclines and dips myself and just focus on bench bench bench, but im no BB. im just after a well rounded physique. pull one, push one.

 

[Madcow2]

Slight incline benches (i.e. what I assume you mean by Low Low Incline) are a very good exercise. Sometimes a bit easier on the body for someone who is bothered by flat bench. I wouldn't read anything into the "pump" though. That and soreness don't mean a thing. Training to failure also is not required for maximal results and tends to wear down the CNS unnecessarily.

If you are so inclined this is a long thread discussing HIT which centers around training to failure. There is a lot of science in it (mainly discussion and links to other really good resources) and it is very long mainly because the people who generally are promoting HIT don't understand enough about exercise science to even have a conversation with i.e. Gfromaz in that thread. Not that HIT can't work or that everyone using HIT doesn't have a clue, just that most people who argue vocally in favor of it tend to not have any background in proper training theory or anything outside of HIT promotional materials and the general garbage promoted in the weider mags and such. Starting in the middle is probably the best idea if you have some time to kill: http://www.fortifiediron.net/invision/index.php?showtopic=6685&st=125